Police Arrest Man For Refusing To Tweet

RichZellich writes "Police arrested a senior vice president from Island Def Jam Records, saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating. The crowd at a mall where Justin Bieber was appearing got out of control, and police wanted the man to send a tweet asking for calm; he refused and they arrested him on a felony assault charge 'for putting people in danger.'"

Comments

Decisions, decisions...

[bbbaldie]

Do I side with the Fascist cops or the Nazi record exec?

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[xOneca]

The enemy of your enemy is you.

Re:Decisions, decisions...

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy of your enemy is your ally.

Really? 'Cause this one time I was stomping the Zerg and the Terrans showed up and destroyed my base.

Ahh Slashdot

[George Beech]

He was not arrested for "felony assault" he was arrested for, and i quote TFA:

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

And no i'm not new here.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

obstructing government administration

Wow. The fact that you can even be charged for something as vague and open to interpretation as that is scary regardless of the context.

Re:Ahh Slashdot

[shutdown -p now]

I am of the opinion that laws should at least attempted to be written in such a way that they are parseable and understandable by mere mortals. I understand the need for unambiguous legalese, but in this case the title of the law is clearly misleading.

Anyway, looking at the law itself, I do not see how it applies here:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function...

Okay, now the specific conditions follow:

by means of intimidation, physical force or interference

Doesn't apply.

by means of any independently unlawful act

Doesn't apply.

by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service

Doesn't apply.

by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Doesn't apply. In fact, it is perfectly clear and obvious to any sane person - which should, presumably, include police (I sure hope they're sane when on duty!) - that none of those points can apply to this man. I'm not sure, perhaps what he did is indeed grounds for arrest under the laws as written, just not this one.

Re:How would that work

[dintlu]

What gives the police the right to compel a person to say or do anything?

The way I see it, the police know this exec is going to walk away with a clean record- after all, he's done nothing wrong. The consequence of this mess is that the average person will be more likely to comply when an illegal demand is made by the police, because the average person can't afford the same legal representation as a corporate executive.

Crap

[wkurzius]

According to police, the crowd was broken up after safety concerns were raised, but Bieber's record exec, James Roppo, Tweeted that the singer was still signing. This caused fans to go berzerk and rush forward, breaking down barriers.

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Fans-of-Tween-King-Justin-Bieber-Cause-Mall-Riot/26650.html

Roppo continued to tweet about the autograph signing even after it was canceled and ended up being arrested for reckless endangerment among other crimes.

http://military.rightpundits.com/2009/11/24/james-roppo-man-arrested-for-not-tweeting-cancellation-of-justin-bieber-event-photos/

Crappy summary linking to crappy reporting.

Re:How would that work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

Re:How would that work

[tomhudson]

You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer. Failing to do so is unlawful. So if the cop says,"tell them to leave [because you've created a dangerous situation by being here]" you'd better comply, or you'll get sent down. Just because they told him to do it with twitter makes no difference.

You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true

You're obliged to order others to comply with a lawful order (specifically wrt communications): false

The due process clause of th 14th amendment makes it clear that the 1st amendment applies to state and local government (which includes the police). Freedom of speech equally means you can't be ordered to say something. They can order you to leave. They can't order you to tell others to leave.

Re:How would that work

[tverbeek]

But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer. The police do not have the legal authority to order you to say anything. They can ask you to, just like they can ask you to let them search your house, or ask you to confess to a crime, but that's not an order.

Re:How would that work

[canajin56]

That's the singer. The record exec was told by police to break it up, and they started putting up barricades to keep the crowds out of the mall. That's why the singer wasn't allowed in, and had to leave, and that's why he tweeted that. Meanwhile, the exec was still tweeting telling people no no no, it's still on, bring your friends! The police told him to stop, and he said no, it's a free country, etc, so they arrested his ass. At one point, he tweeted that the singer was there now, signing as we speak, causing the crowds to surge forward bowling over police and barricades trying to get in. So yeah, also, to all the idiots saying the crowds wouldn't have brought their fucking phones...brilliant guys, brilliant, but apparently they did, because within seconds they went from mostly contained to riot mode...

Re:How would that work

[KC7JHO]

You are incorrect. The 5th amendment guaranties you the right to not be forced to incriminate your self. The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather. This is not only a lawful request but a prudent one. The use of twitter is of no consequence except that it was the mobs chosen means of communication. It would have been the same if they were all using hand held radios.

Re:Riotous rumor

[canajin56]

Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article. If you read TFA, the crowds were contained by police, who errected barricades to try and hold them back. The singer tweeted them all that it was off, and not to show up. They started dispursing without a story on the national news, so the record exec tweeted and told them it was still on, mixup, he's inside RIGHT NOW RUN HURRY! And they rioted, smashing through barricades. Yeah, you're totally right, teenagers don't bring cellphones when they go outside, and those few that do don't fucking use twitter. Idiot, every last one was subscribed, that's why they showed up in the first place, twitter flashcrowd. So the guy got arrested because, instead of doing what he was asked, telling them it was canceled, because it was, he told them it's still on, and urged them to break through police barricades.

Re:How would that work

[dondelelcaro]

The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather.

So, you think that he should admit that he caused [a mob] to gather (that is, incited a riot) by trying to get them to disperse?

Thanks, but I'll be talking to my attorney first.

Re:How would that work

[Memroid]

"Vee haf vays of making you tweet."

I believe the correct spelling is "tveet."